SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN TERTIARY INSTITUTIONS: MATTERS ARISING: BY MOSES AMADI

The university is the citadel of learning where students are taught rudiments of each discipline of choice which brings about interactions between them and the lecturers. In a broader sense, the relationship that exists between the lecturer and the student is that of authority, dependency and trust.

Such relationship has been abused by some lecturers who believe they have the power to decide the fate of the students, and therefore engage in some unpleasant shady activities such as sexual harassment as a base to award pass marks to students.

Recently, social media was awash with some lecturers who used sex-for-marks tactics to get at some of their admired students, exposing how they pass students at will. This has truncated the lives of many students who sometimes end up not even passing while some who manage to scale the hurdle have some bitter stories to tell.

The recorded audio of a postgraduate student, Monica Osagie, in 2018 and the documentary evidence of a BBC undercover reporter detailing the involvement of a Nigerian lecturer in sex-for-marks scandal bring to the fore the increasing prevalence of the menace of sexual harassment.

There was also a report in the University of Calabar of a lecturer who was alleged to have harassed a student. The student was writing a test, and for some reason, the dean sent the student out of the hall and arranged another test in his office for the student. That student was raped there in the dean’s office even though the dean pleaded consent. But a stuent who is held hostage by a predator lecturer is incapable of giving voluntary and informed consent.

This is a problem that has been with us for several decades and it seems as if the perpetrators have taken it as a matter of right to continue with their lechery. This is in spite of the fact that there are internal mechanisms to check the atrocities within the tertiary education system. It is said that at every point, the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) does not hesitate to escalate whatever findings it receives about its members who are having unethical behaviours. The case of sexual harassment by Prof. Akindele in the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) has been addressed. He is already convicted and serving a jail term of about 11 years.

In South Africa, lecturers’ relationships with students are strictly defined such that there are hours lecturers cannot meet their students, circumstances under which lecturers cannot be found with their students, and communications lecturers cannot have with their students. Violation of this policy will lead to criminal prosecution depending on the weight of the infraction.

Many universities are formulating policies mostly called gender policies that will define relationship between lecturers and students. This is practicalised in South Africa and Finland, where gender policies are used to track and identify lecturers who could be engaged in illicit affairs with their students, and handed over to law enforcement agencies.  

Structures in the Nigerian tertiary institutions such as staff ethics and professional disciplinary committee can be strengthened through the backing of the law. For instance, the best the university can do to anyone that has committed rape is to dismiss and hand them over to the police for prosecution.

In many of the campuses, there have been intensified efforts in raising consciousness among students. There is the recently formed staff-student relationship committee which is promoting anonymous submissions of petitions in suggestion boxes against perceived sexual offenders. The alleged offenders are put under watch and at the appropriate time, subjected to disciplinary procedure once there is sufficient prima facie evidence.

What this does is to allow university policies drive the process of tracking. By applying, strengthening and enforcing the policy, the university can identify those who commit these infractions so that they will be turned to law enforcement agents for the purpose of prosecution. The imperfections in these existing structures can be strengthened through research meant to address gaps in existing modes of behaviour. Cases are also happening in the larger society every day and it’s not as if there are no extant laws relating to sexual offences and sexual molestations, rape and other cases. It is worthy of note that the Kano State House of Assembly passed Castration Bill as punishment for rape

In both the criminal code and penal code, there are broad sections dealing with sexual offences including domestic violence, defilement, indecent assault and rape. But to a large extent, the legislation has never been properly implemented to address infractions. And so, there are lapses in the legislation that have made it easy for predators to continue to commit atrocities and get away with them. There are no stringent penalties for the offences.

There are reports that the National Universities Commission (NUC) and ASUU attested to those gaps; the latter issuing a statement that there were no solutions to the problem as they relied on moral suasion to get their members to do what’s right. In that statement, what came across was that there was no tough legislation on sexual harassment hence the need to resort to moral suasion.

For this reason, there is the re-introduction of the bill titled an Act to Prevent and Prohibit and Redress Sexual Harassment of Students in Tertiary Educational Institutions and other matters connected therewith. Framers of this bill have tried to explain the challenges of the coverage of the bill, comments and views of a number of civil society organisations that believe the bill should have covered the educational sector rather than targeting solely tertiary institutions. The initiators of the bill referenced the South Africa Employers Educators Act of 1998 specifically Section 17 which contains the bulk of their research work.

Proponents of the bill are of the view that the rationale behind limiting the bill to tertiary institutions was a good decision.  According to them, under the criminal code and the penal code, secondary school students and primary school pupils cannot plead consent because they are incapable of giving such consent. In this regard, we are talking about defilement, paedophiling, and so on. Given that informed and voluntary consent is a defence to rape, a minor in primary or secondary school doesn’t have the mental capacity to prove that the predator actually committed the offence which is what the prosecutor needs to convict the offender.

However, there are fears surrounding lack of evidence and enforcement challenges arising from some of the provisions of the bill including whistling, winking and making sexually uncomplimentary remarks. But the bill provides that, in the internet age, a student who is determined to prove her case will take serious steps to get the evidence in place.

Technology can also be used positively or negatively depending on who is handling the process or deployment. A lecturer can be set up or maligned as the electronic evidence can be manipulated to show that he has been harassing a student who wants to blackmail him to gain higher grades. There are research reports of sexual harassment where professors committed suicide because they were falsely accused and denied fair hearing.

Under Title 9 of the Higher Education Act of 1972 in America, some of these provisions are contained therein. This new bill should incorporate the mischief such law seeks to cure and tailor it to suit our situation. We cannot be in isolation of the world.

Before a student will make an official sexual harassment petition to the independent sexual harassment investigative committee created under this bill, the student must have concrete evidence to prove her case. The bill provides for sanctions up to expulsion for a student who makes false allegation. Under the laws of defamation, the lecturer as the bill also provides, is at liberty to take further civil action.

Sexual molestation in Nigeria has escalated to a state of a pandemic. Yet there has been a culture of silence or even conspiracy with respect to the gross abuse of authority and trust by educators in relation to students who suffer these forms of harassment. Such silence which we all seem to be neglecting, is one of the reasons why this pandemic is on the rise. There is conspiracy of silence in the home, community, religious bodies, educational institutions, among others, because of the fear of the unknown. When students don’t break the culture of silence, it’s the stigma and stereotyping that are responsible for it.

This problem is taken as a scar by students for the rest of their lives, and at the same time, the predators assume it’s their right. The legislation should be strengthened so that students can be empowered to speak out and report infractions. If students know that when they speak out, they will get justice, they will be encouraged to report more atrocities.

Female lecturers should be seen coming out to speak in support of the victims of sexual harassment because when they do, it will encourage the victims or would-be victims to know they can confide in a female lecturer and be protected and supported, and be sure that the perpetrator is brought to book.

Recent reports of high profile cases of sexual harassment involving lecturers in prominent universities across the country prompted the re-introduction of this new bill which was first presented in 2016 to the 8^th Assembly. Unfortunately, it failed to become an Act in 2016. It was not a deliberate act on the part of the House of Representatives to fail to pass it. Timing was the challenge. But now that there is sufficient time, it is hoped that the House will act on it quickly.

The bill re-introduced by the Deputy Senate President, Ovie Omo-Agege, is coming at this time with the hope of sealing observed legislative gaps. The bill has 27 clauses, and prescribes sterner punishment for convicted offenders in tertiary institutions. Specifically, the bill stipulates 14-year jail term without any option of fine for convicted persons. The bill has scaled through the Senate with the support of 106 Senators and awaiting concurrence from the House of Representatives.

The bill is said to be a laudable effort to stem the tide of heinous acts by lecturers, as this marks the first time sexual harassment is criminalised. There was a study of countries with sexual harassment laws. Nigeria was not one of them. Nigeria is about the only country at the moment that does not have a law specifically criminalising sexual harassment.

However, there are issues in the bill. Most worrisome is the public interpretation and the blame game. Rather than deal with the issues holistically, there are calls for legislation for dress code for women which is usually a reference point to justify sexual harassment.

The issue here is about the desirability or otherwise of the legislation. ASUU has declared that it does not support sexual harassment under any guise. According to ASUU, the Union has consistently worked with university authorities to see how they could control and prevent cases of sexual harassment on campuses.

ASUU believes it would have been better if the scope of the bill was not restricted or limited to tertiary institutions. That is why it has vehemently opposed the bill, describing it as unethical, immoral and against the rules and regulations of the Union. The Union wants it to be dropped on certain grounds, one of which is that it is discriminatory and subjective while declaring that people in higher institutions are also from the larger society.

ASUU stated that it had engaged the National Assembly on the discriminatory nature of this legislation, explaining that if care is not taken, it will create a thick douse of stigma against its members particularly male lecturers who are now seen as potential sexual predators and appear to have been criminalised.

Curiously, some female lecturers are complicit. Male lecturers are not the only perpetrators.  Until sexual harassment is looked at broadly, we may not be getting it right. It is important to know that sexual harassment could be female to female, female to male, and so on. It’s just that there are more male perpetrators than female. So you find more female victims than male offenders.

ASUU wants legislation that practically looks at sexual harassment in every facet of life including sex for contract, promotion, transfers, and so on. In other words, ASUU would have been happier if the bill had extended to the whole society because the pandemic of sexual harassment today deserves a general and holistic legislation. 

The Covid-19 lockdown saw an escalation of rape and other sexual harassments. A lot of women both within and outside the school system have come out to complain. For instance the lady who complained about being harassed by a professor in OAU finally graduated. She went for a job interview, and the information gathered was that she was told by officials of the company that they had no place for a whistleblower. She is being discriminated against while trying to get a job.

Even though this bill is narrow in scope, it doesn’t take away the importance of criminalising sexual harassment. Now that the Senate has passed the bill, it is hoped that the House of Representatives should follow suit so that the bill may be assented to by the president. It is hoped that it will become law and that lecturers in tertiary institutions will be very conscious of its existence and perhaps reduce, if not eliminate, the rate of perpetuation.

Tertiary institutions may be the starting point. But there is need to strengthen extant laws in the larger society where more worrisome deeds are committed.

Getting the buy-in of stakeholders is key so that when the bill becomes law, it can be more effective. It may not be out of place to say that the bill is out to achieve three things: to control, to prevent and to redress or to address infractions. Those three goals won’t be achieved unless the buy-in of stakeholders is guaranteed. In the end, it’s human beings that will implement laws. And unless you get the buy-in of those who will implement and enforce the bill, it may suffer a setback.

Perhaps that’s why the observations and criticisms thrown up during the public hearing should be revisited and addressed so that we don’t have a bill, which right from the outset, will be resented or become a lame dog.

ASSESSING THE CONTROVERSY OVER MARRIED WOMEN AND INDIGENESHIP: BY MOSES AMADI

Societies that have evolved a consciousness that does away with outdated ideas of gender, whether those attitudes are religious or historical, concomitantly create other sophisticated concepts that result in social progression.

But insistence on rigid gender roles even as the ground beneath our feet is shifting, is one of the ways the society holds back everyone. In spite of the constitutional provision on human rights and fundamental freedoms, many women have inadvertently found themselves under the bondage of social inequalities and discrimination in the family, community and workplace.

For the most part, our sense of right and wrong is mediated by primal sentiments and stereotypes such as religion, ethnicity, tradition, culture, religion, political philosophy and beliefs detrimental to, especially, married women.

This belief system has raised fundamental questions bordering on indigeneship by birth or by marriage. There are examples of the jeopardy that some married women have suffered on account of their state of origin and state of marriage more particularly with regard to political appointments and other leadership positions.

The basis of belonging to the Nigerian state is citizenship. Unfortunately, the basis for sharing the “national cake” is indigeneship, an ephemeral concept which works against the highly mobile nature of the human being.

The trigger for this would appear to be what has played out in some states of the federation. In 2012, the then Chief Justice of Nigeria, Justice Aloma Muktar, declined to swear in Hon. Ifeoma Jumbo-Ofo as Justice of the Court of Appeal on the basis of her state of origin despite the intervention of the National Judicial Commission (NJC). Justice Jombo-Ofo hails from Anambra state and had served in the Abia state judiciary for 14 years where her husband hails from.

A similar scenario played out in Cross River State where the NJC interviewed two judges; Justice Akon Ikpeme and Justice Maurice Eneji, for the post of Chief Judge of the state. After the interview, the verdict was that Justice Akon Ikpeme was the preferred candidate while Justice Eneji was the reserve candidate. At the end of the day, Justice Ikpeme was sworn in in acting capacity.

But as a result of primordial sentiments, her confirmation as substantive Chief Judge was said to have been declined by the Cross River State House of Assembly on the grounds that she could become a ‘security risk’ to the state because of her ties with Akwa Ibom state. This was coming three months after Justice Ikpeme served as Chief Judge in acting capacity in Cross River state. This situation generated controversy among the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) and the International Federation of Women Lawyers (FIDA), Nigeria. Both associations insisted on swearing in Justice Ikpeme.

Justice Ikpeme was the most senior serving judge of the Cross River State High Court and worked for decades as a judicial officer, attaining the post of director of public prosecution. If she was found worthy to be director of public prosecution and a High Court Judge, what stops her from becoming a Chief Judge of Cross River State?

Justice Ikpeme’s husband is from Cross River state while she hails from neighbouring Akwa Ibom state. Both states were together until September 23, 1987 when Akwa Ibom was carved out of Cross River state. 

The same fate befell Justice Patricia Mahmoud. Her appointment as the Acting Chief Judge of Kano State on January 2015 was marred by controversies because she’s from Benue state but got married in Kano state. This was after she has put in decades of service in the judiciary. Her nomination to the Court of Appeal was equally opposed by Kano state authorities who invoked the Federal Character principle. They were not pleased at the prospect of Justice Patricia claiming Kano’s slot at the Appellate Court.

As it affects women in politics, the lawmaker, Princess Miriam Onuoha, representing Okigwe, Onuimo and Isiala Mbano Federal Constituency of Imo State, symbolises a handful of Nigerian women who are still struggling to break through the barrier. Her electoral victory marks the first time a woman will represent her Constituency. This is coming after her fourth attempt in her determined effort to represent her people in that capacity.

The enforcement of restrictions may have compelled both the 7^th and 8^th National Assembly to seek ways of addressing the problem. In the 8^th National Assembly, the House of Representatives passed a bill sponsored by the former Attorney-General of Plateau state, Hon. Edward Gyang Pwajok, SAN, which gave women dual indigeneship. The bill provided women with the option of choosing either indigeneship in their state of origin or state of marriage in official matters.

Unfortunately, by the time the 8^th National Assembly wound up, the Senate had not concurred to that bill. It is hoped that the bill will be reintroduced in the 9^th National Assembly and passed and assented to by the President.  

There is a temptation to see the gender challengeas a mix of constitutional and social conflict. The Federal Character Commission Act in its guiding principle provides that, for the purposes of appointment at the federal level, that the married woman shall continue to hold on to her state of origin. In clearer terms, a relevant paragraph as part of a subsidiary legislation gives the indication that a married woman “shall continue to lay claim” to her state of origin for the purpose of implementation of the Federal Character principle at the national level.

By way of beneficial interpretation, this Act seems to have conferred dual advantage on the married woman, which means that she will continue to enjoy her rights both as an indigene of her state and in her husband’s state.

On the other hand, the Constitution provides for the principle of non-discrimination, expressly prohibiting prejudice on the basis of state of origin, ethnicity, sex and other grounds for discrimination. The Constitution is supreme. Once there is a conflict between a national law and the Constitution itself, the law is clear; national law should give way to the Constitution. Every other law derives from the Constitution including the Federal Character Act. If there is that inconsistency with the Constitution, then the Constitution will prevail. That inconsistency derives from the interpretation.

Generally, the problem of indigeneship goes beyond the Federal Character Act and constitution grafting and panel beating. Most of the issues that affect married women in politics and other appointive positions, have to do with cultural norms and societal bondage.

Even a woman’s physiological build has become a barrier. Sadly, a married woman who doesn’t have children, is viewed as being incapable of providing quality leadership. The assumption is that since she does not have children of her own to control or guide, she will have crisis of leadership integrity in politics. The way a woman is wired for marriage is such that she could be married today and for circumstances she may not control, she is no longer married. It’s a psychological imbalance that deals a blow on women who ordinarily should be encouraged to aspire to get to their peak. 

Indigeneship is not so much about legal matters; the confusion can also stem from the politics of patronage in Nigeria. For every example you can cite, legally speaking, why a woman is denied, you can also cite why, if she has the right backing, sentiments will be overlooked in her favour.

The federal character principle suggests that all the appointments by the federal government shall be done in such a way that there will not be preponderance of any ethnic group. Put differently, the general internment of the federal character principle is that it applies throughout the federation and also to the sub-national entities. For equity and fairness, the Principle can also be applied so that only one ethnic group or one local government will not continue to dominate the others.

But in reality, federal character principle is flouted as evidenced in many government agencies in terms of appointments, employment, among other factors. What is playing out is power politics. The same power game applies to indigeneship.

As part of political culture, power determines who gets what and why. A lot depends on the political support the woman has. A number of examples will suffice. Senator Grace Folashade Bent from Osun state was elected to represent the people of Adamawa Southern Senatorial Zone.

The nomination of Justice Ifeoma Jumbo-Ofo was made by former Abia state governor, TA Orji, even though majority of Abia people were not happy about the nomination. According to them, Justice Jombo-Ofo had taken the slot of Abia state in the Court of Appeal. But TA Orji stood his ground. Eventually, the case was brought before the NJC which looked into it, and found merit in her nomination and declared that she had been working in Abia State Civil Service for over 20 years.

To provide further direction, all appointments to public offices should be based on merit. There have been sterling examples in recent times such as the appointment made by the Ekiti State Governor, Kayode Fayemi. He appointed Akan Akpan originally from Akwa Ibom State as the Executive Secretary in the Ekiti State Civil Service. Similarly, Governor of Borno state, Babagana Zulum, approved the accelerated promotion of a teacher from Abia state to the post of Assistant Headmistress with cash gift to boot.

 

Elsewhere in Africa, Uganda has put measures in place to encourage engaging participation of women in politics. The Ugandan Constitution ensures that out of the 112 districts in that country, one district must be represented by a woman. There are five special interest groups that are also given reserve seats in their parliament including labour (workers’ union), military, youth, persons with disability and the women. For the military, there are 10 seats reserved for them in the parliament, two of those 10 seats must be filled by women. Out of the five reserved for the youth, one must be filled by a woman. Out of the five reserved for the workers’ union, one must be occupied by a woman. This way, Uganda has shown that it is promoting inclusiveness in its political space.

But in Nigeria, the Federal Character Act was decreed into existence by the military which is now deemed to be the Act of National Assembly that has brought about this indigeneship confusion. The way to cure it alongside gender bias Customary Laws, is to go back to the National Assembly which has the power to rectify it even though when a matter is before the National Assembly, it becomes a mixture of politics and constitutional provisions.

The moral necessity to uphold human rights cannot be overemphasized because in cherishing freedom and the values that define a focused society, we become proactive. This way, we can give meaning to responsibility and accountability.

More than ever, it shouldn’t matter where a woman comes from so long as she is a Nigerian. Merit should matter. There are sizable numbers of Nigerian women who are vibrant, world class citizens, and can hold their own anywhere but are limited by politics of patriarchy and hegemony.

 

FAMILY VALUES AND NATION BUILDING: BY MOSES AMADI

The recent online video showing five secondary school girls smoking certain substances could be wrongly interpreted as the human imperative for freedom, exploration, and sometimes, youthful exuberance.

Young people are said to learn such behavior deficits from peer groups and what they see in the creative and innovative industry as well as the social media.

But be that as it may, such transgression is an excessiveness that is totally strange to decent behaviour, and should not just merit a mere reprimand by way of suspension. More drastic measures should be taken to serve as a deterrent to others.

This is essential to contextualize the control of youthful energy in the family, which in sociology is referred to as the basic unit of the society. A family is first and foremost, a place of refuge. It’s a place that individuals feel secure because it is expected that love and care should be given by family members. That forms the values that shape the boundary for conduct and behavior.

Family values and national development go hand in hand, and as the primary agent of socialization, the family is duty-bound to imbibe norms and values imperative to the development of the nation. This speaks to the foundational ethics, philosophy and ethos of a people.

Every individual comes from the family which is the core fabric of the society. The society begins to grow from the family. People with good family upbringing are good assets to society because they will certainly almost exhibit high morals in all facets of activities and endeavours.

The society is a reflection of family values and such values can make or mar the nation. A broken society is therefore, a reflection of broken families within that society. The aggregate of our national experience is such that we find behaviours that indicate huge moral deficit in our society. The moral deficit that we observe is exhibited on all fronts including some parents who are ordinarily supposed to be the guiding force.

Recent occurrences have revealed a sharp decline in family and moral values. Many youths, adults and adolescents are embracing anti-social behaviour which is causing a drastic change in the quality of relationships in family circles.

The degradation of family values is playing out in the social domain where we now have criminality and all manner of behavior especially among the younger generation. The challenges we are facing presuppose that the family is under threat in Nigeria. Parents are too busy trying to put food on the table, and abdicating their responsibilities to house-helps and other domestic staff. The culture of bonding is getting very relaxed and in some cases, non-existent because of modernity-related issues.

Meaningful communication in the family hardly takes place, and when you find an element of interaction, people are communicating more with electronic gadgets. The emotional security is lacking. There is hardly time to connect. It has been argued that these factors do not enhance protection and humanity in the family unit. They do not make people have a true sense of attachment and belonging. But when love and respect are shared, with the physical presence of family members, they go a long way in bringing emotional stability. That is a foundational issue that needs to be encouraged.

The society itself has evolved wrongly. Our collective value system as a society has failed us. In our society today, we are growing up with a population of people, majority of whom have refused to transit from juveniles to adults. We have cross-dressers –  young men dressing like women and vice versa.

Parents always expect their children to come out to be better than them but there is a failure of generational transmission of values to the children. Parenting is one thing, nurturing is another. If you are parenting and not providing the necessary nourishment in terms of moral values, the children grow up to be malnourished in values. Neglected children are now going to the street and adopting their own street values which they impose on society.

As a society, we are living a life of lies. The society has configured achievement negatively. One of the things that has turned us this way is the excessive quest for materialism; primitive accumulation of wealth has been given a pride of place. Parents live in opulence and cannot explain the sources of their wealth to their children who incidentally have an idea of what they earn. That feeling of entitlement begins to rub off on the children.

We live in an environment where there is success without hard work. The ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor is an issue. People with no visible means of livelihood are recognised and rewarded. Hence the growing desire to get rich quick and celebrate riches without questioning the sources. Youths on the street also want to get rich quick and get recognition.

We have a society that protects privileges. In other words, you are protected if you are privileged. The hegemonies that are being created, as a result, are not encouraging. The children of uniformed people mostly find themselves in the uniformed services; the same applies to the civil service; children in certain privileged classes get into certain privileged responsibilities. A society configured based on this kind of exclusiveness and distortion does not promote egalitarianism.

Naturally, the result is predictable; family values which shape and transform nations are neglected, and national development is greatly impeded. Such problematic issues are already posing a threat to the family which also indicate the kind of tensions we are having in our society that undermine national security and ultimately national development.

No doubt, what is being referenced here is that we have a generational challenge in reconstructing our relationship with our children. If we continue the way we are going, there may be no space to live in peace.

Family value is a panacea to national development. Government needs to invest in family education, and this will go a long way in redirecting the young ones. This effort can be complemented by checking and stopping the expansion of toxic value through enlarging the coast of resistance, and building capacity at different levels. There is so much connivance of silence. We need to resist what is not right.

Parents must begin to reflect and also take advantage of opportunities to build their capacity and skills to help the child of today that are so advanced and have easy access to a lot of information. Parents need to be strategic in countering the technology skills of their children.

The reported plan by the National Orientation Agency (NOA) to work with Google on digital parenting is a welcome development. Parents cannot afford to be ignorant of the realities on the ground. It is expected that there will be workshops and training programmers for parents to understand what their children know because raising children in this generation entails knowing what children know.

The bulk of raising a child both in social integration and interaction, belongs to the domain of parents. Whatever traits we have found in our national life are transmitted from the family. The family unit feeds into the community, and the community feeds into the society. We need to recapture our space, and cautiously invest in our families through the quality time we spend with our children and spouses.

Parents must rise to the occasion, and give their children the needed supervision. They cannot afford to leave their wards who need control and supervision. Children must have values that will make them do what is right even when nobody is watching. That promotes family ethics in our national life.

It is necessary for families to ensure that child-parent attachment and mutual support is not lacking so that children will not become miscreants in society and be used by deviants to stall national development. Parents who have left their children to the vagaries of street life should be traced and made to take responsibility. We need to grow children that will not become juveniles at adulthood; children who are focused so that we can reconstruct our society to provide us with good leadership and secure environment.

Family values should be cherished. We must begin to respect each other, and construct situations that enable people to grow up with respect. The family as an entity therefore, has a responsibility to mould values towards positive orientation for national development and indeed, peaceful co-existence. This speaks to societal values, as a nation’s development can be measured through human development.